Trustees and remuneration: three myths that are holding us back

Efforts to strengthen equity, representation, and inclusion across the third sector often focus on recruitment, culture, and governance processes. Yet one area remains curiously resistant to change: trustee remuneration.

Concerns about affordability, regulatory barriers, or reputational risk continue to overshadow more constructive discussion. But many of these concerns are rooted in myths rather than reality.

Below, we unpack the three most persistent myths and offer an alternative view of what ethical, inclusive trustee remuneration could look like.

Myth 1: “Charities don’t pay trustees—it’s simply not allowed.”

This assumption is deeply ingrained, but it does not reflect the full picture of sector practice. Many charities, especially medical research charities and independent foundations, have a long history of compensating their board members with the endorsement of the Charity Commission. In recent years, the Charity Commission has made their process for seeking approval even easier.

These organisations have demonstrated that remuneration can be:

• aligned with charitable purpose,

• conducted with full transparency, and

• justified as a tool for attracting the right skills and experience to the organisation.

  
  

Their experience shows that payment is neither new nor incompatible with charity governance. Instead, for many mission‑driven organisations, remuneration is a practical and principled way to ensure that people who bring essential expertise or lived experience are not excluded simply because they cannot afford to volunteer significant time.

The issue, then, is not whether charities can remunerate trustees but whether they have examined remuneration through the lens of inclusion, access, and strategic value.

Myth 2: “We can’t afford to pay trustees.”

Affordability is a legitimate concern but it is often discussed without reference to realistic figures.

A helpful benchmark comes from public sector board roles in the UK, where remuneration commonly falls in the region of £200–£300 per day. If we consider that a typical trustee contributes around 30 hours per year (roughly equivalent to four full working days), remuneration aligned with these norms would amount to under £1,500 per trustee per year.

For many very small and volunteer-run charities, that may feel beyond reach. For many others, this level of investment is both feasible and strategically sound.

Why? Because remuneration can:

• Improve board stability, reducing the cost and disruption of repeated recruitment

• Attract a wider and more representative pool of candidates

• Strengthen lived‑experience governance, which is essential for many charities’ legitimacy and impact

• Reduce inequity, ensuring that trustees are not limited to those with financial privilege

When viewed through this broader value lens, remuneration becomes not a luxury, but a pragmatic enabler of good governance.

Myth 3: “If we start paying trustees, people might take advantage.”

Concerns about inappropriate claims or misuse of funds often stem from a fear of setting a precedent that is difficult to control. But here again, public sector practice provides a useful reference point.

Public bodies usually safeguard against inappropriate payment through clear principles. For example:

• Individuals may only claim remuneration if they are not already being paid by an employer for their governance or civic participation.

• Payments are designed to replace lost income, not supplement it. As a result, it typically only makes financial sense for individuals earning below roughly £40,000 per year to claim the per‑diem allowance rather than rely on their regular salary.

• Given the current skew within the trustee base towards higher earning individuals, this encourages many people to make use of volunteer or civic duty policies within their organisation, wherever available.

  
  

This means the proportion of trustees who would choose to take the payment is likely less than many anticipate.

These safeguards are simple to adapt and adopt. With clear policy, transparent reporting, and sound governance processes, charities can manage remuneration risks just as effectively as public institutions do.

Why these myths matter and what they are costing the sector

Together, these myths create a self‑reinforcing culture of caution that disproportionately excludes people who:

• cannot afford unpaid professional commitments,

• have valuable lived experience but limited financial flexibility,

• come from communities the charity exists to serve, or

• are early‑career experts who bring fresh and needed insight

  
  

As a result, organisations risk boards that are less diverse, less representative, and less equipped to understand the realities faced by their beneficiaries.

Challenging these assumptions is not simply an administrative exercise. It is an opportunity to shift towards more equitable, modern, and accountable governance.

Moving forward: Practical steps for organisations exploring trustee remuneration

Charities interested in building a more inclusive remuneration approach can consider:

• Reviewing internal assumptions and comparing them with actual regulatory provisions

• Discussing remuneration alongside broader equity and inclusion goals

• Piloting a remuneration model (e.g., for specific roles or committees)

• Creating transparent eligibility and expense claims policies with broad cover for factors such as caring and accessibility costs

• Monitoring and reviewing impact on board diversity, stability, and decision quality

  
  

Remuneration is not about paying trustees for the sake of it. It is about removing structural barriers, widening access to governance, and ensuring that the people who lead charities reflect the people and communities charities exist to support.